PCB bans Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan from playing for Pakistan

As a part of their efforts to get the national team back on track after the disastrous Australian tour, the PCB has decided to ban the two top batsmen of Pakistan from playing for the national team– permanently. The PCB also slapped one year bans to Shoaib Malik and Rana Naveed and also fined Shahid Afridi and the Akmal brothers for various reasons.

“Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan, keeping in view their infighting which resulted in bringing down the whole team, their attitude has a trickledown effect which is a bad influence for the whole team should not be part of national team in any format,” the board said in its statement issued on Wednesday. The PCB has stopped short of calling the punishment a life ban. “They will not be part of any Pakistan team in any format from here on,” Taffazul Rizvi, the board’s legal advisor told Cricinfo. “A life ban means they cannot play domestic cricket or any other similar cricket, but we are not stopping them from that. They can play domestic cricket or county cricket here and abroad.” The cases of indiscipline that have led to one-year bans on Malik and Rana, similarly, have not been expanded upon. “Rana Naved ul Hasan and Shoaib Malik be fined Rupees Two million. They should not be part of national team in any format for a period of one year.”

While I appreciate that the PCB is finally taking some strict action, banning the two world class players of your team won’t help at all. Who is going to fill in the huge middle order gap left by Inazamam and now by Yousuf and Younis ? Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan had been the backbone of our middle order since long, banning them permanently from playing for the national team cannot be justified.

I urge the PCB to review its decision, otherwise expect the two Y’s of Pakistan to approach the Supreme Court for justice.


Zaid Hamid Admits Knowing Yousuf Ali (Kazzab), But denies his Prophethood

An interesting three part video has appeared on YouTube, in which Zaid Hamid clears up all that had been being rumored about his links with the supposed Prophet, Yousuf Ali.

I also happened to stumble upon this document below, which contradicts all claims made by Zaid Hamid in the above videos.

I’ll let you be the judge.

Shaukat Tarin resigns from the federal cabinet

Reports of his resignation had already been circling around the media during the past couple of months but now it has been officially confirmed: Shaukat Tareen has tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister.

Talking with Geo News, Shaukat Tareen told that he has resigned and sent his resignation to the prime minister.
He said that he always worked on principles and has resigned for the principles. Now, he wants to focus on his business.

Shaukat Tarin had been taking steps to curb corruption in various departments and impose taxes on the rich and powerful, however I believe that these elements didn’t let the minister perform his duty and thus the resignation. I have no idea what the government is up to. Of course, when a thief is heading the government, this is what you can expect.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Govt Vs Judiciary: Who Stands Where

Usman Manzoor of  The News enlightens us of the legal arguments in favor of the government and counter arguments in favor of the SC, in the ongoing tussle between the executive and the judiciary which erupted when the SC suspended a notification by President Zardari, appointing Chief Justice Lahore High Court Justice Khwaja Sharif as a judge of the Supreme Court while elevating Justice Saqib Nisar, senior judge of the LHC as acting Chief Justice of the High Court.

By Usman Manzoor

While the government is keeping mum over its failed adventure to subdue the country’s independent judiciary, only a few constitutional and legal experts are trying to defend the government’s action.

Only a respected jurist Fakhruddin G Ebrahim had the courage to immediately correct himself, after issuing an ill-informed interpretation. For the guidance of readers, the arguments generally being presented to defend the government are as follows. The Constitutional position is also given below:

Arguments in favour of government:

1. The president has powers to appoint judges of the SC under Article 177 of Constitution.

2.The president has consulted the CJ as written correspondence was done with the head of judiciary.

3.The govt has followed the rule of seniority as mentioned in the Al-Jehad trust case while appointing Justice Khawaja Sharif as judge of the Supreme Court.

4. The consultation of CJP is not binding on the president.

5. The president can appoint acting CJ of a high court under section 196 of the Constitution without consulting the CJ.

6.What was the necessity of suspending the presidential notification so late in the evening?

7. We acted according to Constitution and the law.

The response

1) Article 177 (1) says: The CJP shall be appointed by the president, and each of the other judges shall be appointed by the president after consultation with the chief justice.

The consultation of the CJ is mandatory as mentioned in Article 260 of the Constitution which says “consultation” shall, save in respect of appointment of judges of the SC and High Courts, mean discussion and deliberation, which shall not be binding on the president.

2) A mere correspondence does not mean consultation but in fact the recommendation of CJP regarding appointment of a judge in the SC has to be followed as it is and if the president has any objection then he has to mention those reasonable objections. Those objections are then justiciable in a court of law and once the court passes an order then that order is the final verdict.

The Al-Jihad trust case states: “The words “after consultation” employed inter alia in Articles 177 and 193 of the Constitution connote that the consultation should be effective, meaningful, purposive, consensus-oriented, leaving no room for complaint of arbitrariness or unfair play. The opinion of the CJP and the CJ of a High Court as to the fitness and suitability of a candidate for Judgeship is entitled to be accepted in the absence of very sound reasons to be recorded by President/Executive.

(xiii) That since consultation for the appointment/confirmation of a Judge of a superior Court by the President/Executive with consultees mentioned in the relevant Articles of the Constitution is mandatory, any appointment/confirmation made without consulting any of the consultees as interpreted above would be violative of the Constitution and, therefore, would be invalid.”

3) The appointment of a judge of a Supreme Court is a fresh appointment and neither the constitution nor the Al-jehad trust case or any other judgment speaks of seniority rule while elevating a judge of a High Court to the SC. Even in the present SC eight out of the total 16 (including one ad hoc judge) have never remained chief justices of the high courts.

Article 177 says: “Appointment of SC Judges.

(1) The CJP shall be appointed by President, and each of other Judges shall be appointed by President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

(2) A person shall not be appointed a Judge of the SC unless he is a citizen of Pakistan and;

(a) Has for a period of, or for periods aggregating, not less than five years been a judge of a High Court (including a HC which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day); or

(b) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating not less than fifteen years been an advocate of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day).” There is no mention of seniority in this article.

4) The consultation regarding the appointment of judges of the superior judiciary is binding on the president according to Article 260 of the constitution which says, “Consultation shall, save in respect of appointments of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, mean discussion and deliberation which shall not be binding on the President”.

The word save here means except or to avoid.

5) The Al-Jehad trust case clearly mentions, “That permanent Chief Justices should be appointed in the High Courts where there is no permanent incumbent of the office of the Chief Justice”. Therefore Justice Saqib Nisar could never be made acting CJ.

6) A similar situation had occurred on the eve of November 3, 2007 and an eight-member bench of the SC passed a verdict setting aside the emergency rule late that Saturday. And in the interim order of Feb 13, the learned judges of the SC have mentioned, “The Additional Registrar, who appeared on Court’s call, informed the Court that a news was telecast in the electronic media regarding the aforesaid notifications and it was also in the news that Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar would be administered oath by tomorrow morning (Sunday), which necessitated the hearing of this case as an urgent one and this Bench was constituted”.

7) the Al-jehad trust case and the constitution was already there and the Supreme court also interpreted it.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Internet Growth In Pakistan

An interesting slideshow by Ali Hadi, regarding the growth of internet users in Pakistan.

View more presentations from Ali Hadi.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Imran Khan humiliates Zardari and his crony–Hillarious

Imran Khan takes Faisal Abidi of PPP heads on, asking him where Zardari ‘earned’ his $60 million dollars from. Instead of replying to the question put forward by Khan, Faisal Raza Abidi avoids the question and at the end of the video, presents a ‘shaer’ (poetry) on the $60 Million and Zardari– Hillarious Stuff.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Zaid Hamid, A Hatemonger

Ghazala Minallah from Islamabad sent the following letter to a local English language daily, urging the government to take action against hatemongers like Zaid Hamid.

“There are a lot of tongues wagging these days about Zaid Hamid. With his western dress, red cap and a modern singer and dress-designer on stage to try and convey that he’s not an extremist, I am afraid every word he utters reeks of extremism. He is addressing the youth of this country, and considering what the nation is going through already, he is preaching hatred and violence. He talks of the Muslims of Pakistan being the ‘chosen’ race.

That the survival of Islam is in their hands, and that they must prepare to conquer Delhi and Israel. He preaches arrogance and contempt for all other religions and races. He ridicules democracy and there are blatant pro-army undertones. He distorts Muslim history and speaks of Gen Zia with reverence. He twists Iqbal’s poetry and the Quaid’s ideology to give credibility to his anti-state propaganda. He mentions the coming of a leader and whether this saviour comes through the use of force by the army or through a religious uprising, ‘we’ (they) would welcome ‘him’.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know who is pulling Zaid’s strings. If he is a true patriot and had an ounce of compassion for this country he would be preaching peace, tolerance, respect for the rule of law and the constitution. In fact, he preaches the total opposite. He reminds me of the FM broadcasts by Fazlullah in Swat who used religion to win over the illiterate masses. And what did the state do while this was going on? Nothing at all; and the rest is history. Let us not make this ridiculous mistake again. I urge every patriotic Pakistani, in particular the youth, to only use their commonsense. I request everyone to read the last speech our Holy Prophet (PBUH) made after the conquest of Mecca. And I urge everyone to study the ideology of Mr Jinnah.

As a concerned citizen I want to know why such anti-state elements are not tried for treason, and also why such rubbish is being promoted by the media. And before anyone mentions ‘freedom of expression’, let me clarify that even in countries with a good track of fundamental rights, such rhetoric would not be protected. Those who protect and patronise such elements need to be questioned as well.”

Very well put by Ghazala, also do check out my post on Zaid Hamid. I would welcome your comments on Zaid Hamid who has indeed been able to build a huge following, but what is his agenda ? My main beef with Mr. Zaid is that he talks against the state, apart from spreading hatred against other nations… and the government, media have given him a free hand.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine